you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 9 months ago* (60 children)

Theres a steep irony in someone doing government controlled work idealizing a system where the work they do would likely not exist. Who exactly would be mandating/funding the existence, operation, or regular testing of a sewage plant in an anarchist society?

Society is poorly designed in the general sense, sure. It could be vastly improved and people could have more liberty wrt a lot of things. But left to their own devices people on average would not choose to mandate water treatment. Even if they somehow did, providing no central system of oversight for making sure that it happens would all but guarantee it doesnt get accomplished.

Its ridiculous how many people take critical aspects of society for granted and assume they would continue to exist in a world where everyone does whatever the fuck they want without any central planning or control. In many places around the world people already dont have access to fresh/clean water for this exact reason…

Look at the libertarian experiments that have all failed spectacularly, like Grafton, NH. Mfs couldnt even agree to not feed the bears or dispose of their trash appropriately. And that doesnt require some massive infrastructure project to accomplish. The greater good often necessitates protecting people at large from their own stupidity, otherwise your liberties are diminished by your neighbor’s negligence

  • source
  • hideshow 60 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago

    Its ridiculous how many people take critical aspects of society for granted and assume they would continue to exist in a world where everyone does whatever the fuck they want without any central planning or control. In many places around the world people already dont have access to fresh/clean water for this exact reason…

    You have a very simplistic view of what an anarchist society could look like and it's rooted in the assumption that the only possible alternative to central planning is no planning. It's absolutely possible for people to organize access to clean water in a decentralized manner and I know this because it has been done repeatedly all over the world and throughout human history. In the places you're thinking of that do not have access to clean water it is often not the result of a lack of central planning, but directly caused by it, such as when a multinational corporation claims a community's water supply as its private property and restricts access.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 23 points 8 months ago (16 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 18 points 8 months ago (14 children)
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    Would you (or any other anarchist reading this) ever want to do an AMA? I have questions, but I imagine that asking them here would feel like dog-piling and I don't want to do that to you. I'm just curious and want to learn more. The last time I heard people take anarchism seriously, school teachers were quick to shut it down.

    I have my own concerns and reservations, but I don't truly know how much of it exists from being stuck in an authoritarian society, and I simply haven't heard the solutions yet because of it. I've always been a skeptic, and I'm always looking for a new way to think about things, even things I don't necessarily agree with. I think a question-and-answer session could be quite enlightening.

    I might not be able to go outside this authoritarian box and explore for myself, but an AMA would at least allow me (and others like me) to look out a window.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I think that you should read about anarchism because you're so confused that it's difficult to explain where.

    councils, working groups, community bodies, assemblies etc are all entirely compatible with anarchy.

    It is not opposition to collectivism, indeed anarchism is (generally) deeply collectivist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    If you're actually interested and not just being debate-y then I'd suggest you read some foundational literature or if you want stuff that's more how this might work in practice consider reading about the CNT FAI during the Spanish civil war.

    The government derives its authority from its ability to direct men armed with guns and torture implements to force you to comply on pain of death or agony.

    Seriously if you're actually curious just read, it'll be more informative than any silly internet comment section.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Nah I'm not going to read a book to answer a simple question.

    A government derives its power from its monopoly of violence. If there is no government, that means there is no monopoly of violence. If there is no monopoly of violence, there is no means to enforce rules or laws, since whoever is more powerful (that is, has "more" violence) can just ignore the rule/law.

    Real world examples of anarchist societies do nothing more than prove my point. They are temporary. Anarchist "rule" in Barcelona did not survive the war. No anarchist societies do.

    In order for a political system to stand the test of time, it has to be protected from both external and internal enemies. That is, you need a military and a police. The only way around it is to import your military (that is, have an ally with a strong military willing to protect you). But it doesn't make much sense to import your police.

    If you don't protect from exterior enemies, the same as Barcelona happens, an enemy force just invades and asserts its political system. And if you don't protect from internal enemies, then your own "citizens" can organize themselves and develop their own state that can just take over all the land that your anarchist society used to be in.

    I find it hard to believe that you can have both a military and a police in a system where there are supposedly no rulers.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (5 children)

    Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that seeks to abolish all institutions that perpetuate authority, coercion, or hierarchy

    Why do you think sewage treatment plants exist in the first place? I’ll give you a hint, its not because people came together altruistically to build them (or even regulate that they need to exist).

    The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 was signed because people, left to their own devices, self-destructively pollute their water supplies. That law mandated people couldnt dump shit in the water. It also was passed because state laws weren’t effective at stopping people from polluting the water

    It wasnt enough, so there was the Water Pollution Control Act of 1948. And then the Water Quality Act of 1965. And then the Clean Water Act of 1972, which provided funding to create sewage treatment plants, and mandated that all wastewater be treated to a certain standard. And even that wasnt enough, which is why we later invented the entire EPA, an entity dedicated largely to that one issue (among similar things).

    None of that would have occurred without centralized authority, nor would have been necessary if a plurality of people were not inherently self destructive when left to their own devices. Anarchism is opposed to any central authority. Thereby, under the most basic logic, sewage treatment plants would be virtually guaranteed not to exist in an anarchical non-society society.

    Giving people at large the benefit of the doubt about an issue they have repeatedly shown to fuck up for centuries is silly. And sewage treatment plants require centralization to be built and maintained.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 13 points 8 months ago (3 children)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (40 children)

    Precisely. The original post shows there could still be labor willing to do the work, but it does does not address how that work would be funded. Even if the labor was free there are resources required to build and maintain that plant that are not free. Where do those resources come from?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (39 children)

    Wait till you hear about the anarchist that loves going into the mines with toxic gases and all to get the resources for the sewage maintainer guy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 8 months ago* (16 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (14 children)

    You think the issue with non authoritarian collectivization is that people don’t like making things?…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (13 children)

    No. The problem is that what people want is not the same as what the people need.

    The central problem of economics is that humans have infinite desires, which need resources to be met, and resources are finite. Therefore, we should aim to efficiently allocate our resources to meet the most of our desires.

    If in a population of 1000, there are 100 fiction writers, you're gone get more fiction books than you can read, and you're probably die of hunger, because now the other 900 have to sustain the 100 writers for basically no value. Since probably most people will only want to read the top 1-2 that are actually good.

    If the other 99-98 other writers don't have any pressure to change careers because the community provides for them, why would they? The thing they want to do most is writing!

    And all that is assuming such a civilization exists. From my PoV, dreaming about anarchism makes no sense. Our world was born anarchic. There were no CEOs nor governments. And the people that lived in that world rapidly formed societies that had hierarchies, because that is the most efficient way.

    The natural consequence of anarchy is non-anarchy. Anarchy is not a final state, it's transitory. Anarchy is not a stable state.

    Just like you can try mixing water and oil all you want, the moment you stop stirring, they will separate.

    The only way to keep a non-stable state is by force. That is, if you want anarchy, there must be someone enforcing that there be anarchy. And if that's the case, then it's no longer anarchy, since there is a ruler.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (10 children)

    Rapidly formed hierarchies huh? miiight wanna read about early human history.

    Hundreds of thousands of years passed before tyrants became the norm

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (9 children)

    You don't need tyrants for hierarchies. Tribes had sages and leaders.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    Hierarchy is not when you are convinced someone is wise lol. Please read a book

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (7 children)

    When i say that there were sages in tribes, I don't mean that there was just a wise guy. I mean that an elder would basically rule the tribe, because everyone would ask him for advice, and there could be consequences if that "advice" wasn't followed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (6 children)

    Supply evidence for your claim. Modern anthropology basically disagrees with you utterly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (5 children)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe

    Under "classifications" plenty of kinds of tribes. Many of them with leaders and hierarchies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    This is a waste of my time. You aren't interested or wanting to learn, you have a cartoon definition of anarchy in your head, you've made no study of human culture and society, you know nothing of the nuanced differences between various cultural groups that have all been lumped under "tribal" and the complex obligations therein, you have not made a study of anything.

    Obviously a chief is a chief is a chief, and obviously these structures existed for hundreds of thousands of years. Yep, completel trivial to explain the fascinating details of the egalitarian and not so egalitarian burial traditions we've found, the decorated disables bodies, sites like Çatalhöyük showing stable and identical houses for thousands of years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    If you at least tried to explain why I'm wrong instead of "you're wrong, read a book", maybe I could use your definition of anarchy instead of mine.

    The definition I got from this post is "anarchy is when people do the work that they love and they don't have to worry about being paid enough for that work". And I don't think that would result in a stable society, since the demand for some kinds of labor is very different to the amount of people that "love" to do that work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    The reason I say read a book is because you will not learn anything structured and thoughtful in an internet comment section. Too many voices, different levels of academic education, ages, experience, or seriousness.

    The foundation for learning about anything is to go to authoratitative sources, to look up terminology etc. It seems very silly, to the degree that it seems bad faith, to form opinions on an ideology without experiencing it in action or reading anything.

    It would be like me criticising the standard model of physics, or the power grid, or whatever. I don't have an opinion on whether we could do better with the power grid because I have never studied it.

    Talking about human nature or historical societies, having never engaged with anthology is like talking about the function of the spleen having never opened an anatomy textbook.

    I mean straight up underneath that silly wikipedia page fragment you linked is a high level discussion of the flaws of the "tribe" or "tribal stage" as a lens for analysing societies and history and how it's not taken super seriously anymore because it doesn't translate well. You're apparently confident that you know what a chief is - universally - but you can't give concrete examples or explain why you think a chief is a small king in the style of absolutist or legalist monarchs with evidence their concrete social roles and privileges.

    I mean even in recent history, let alone 10s of thousands of years ago, multiple distinct societies were well documented in the Americas with vastly different structures and degrees of privilege among "chiefs" with some acting more like centralised resource distributors and advisors and some as the small kings you imagine.

    Anarchy is the absense of hierarchy, there are many schools of anarchy but generally they all agree that involuntary relations wherein one person is elevated above another in terms or access to goods, participation in society, and often fundamentally (as in how these privileges are preserved) the ability to use coercive violence on others.

    A well functioning family is anarchic, a friend group is often anarchic, community organisation are frequently anarchic. It is not stupid, it often works. In times of disaster it is almost always people's fucking rad ability to self organise voluntarily that steps in and saves the day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    All of the examples you mention where anarchy works are small groups of <50 people. This post is talking about anarchy in the scope of an entire labor market. That is thousands of millions of people. The context is way different. Furthermore, all of those examples are small anarchic groups in the context of a non-anarchic society.

    A family can be anarchic, but they still can call the police if a family member murders another one.

    I won't read a book just to argue with someone. Each word has thousands of definitions depending on who uses it. Each different person I've talked to in this thread has a different definition of what anarchy is. If I read a book about anarchy, I can only argue with the author. I won't read 1 book per random person on the internet.

    I ask a simple question: how is an anarchic system going to defend against foreign and inside enemies? In any other system this is a simple answer, yet for anarchy I'm encountering walls of text that either sidetrack the conversation or give an utopian answer of "everyone would come together and defend eachother" which has no basis in reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    I think you're more invested in feeling right than learning why people think differently to you.

    Defending oneself from imperial aggression is hard, almost everyone basically just relies on being too much of a pain in the arse + alliances + paying tribute. It's unlikely that would change. Generally state militaries are ineffective vs local decentralised resistance and actually occupying ground. See failures in Iraq (twice), afganistan, Vietnam, Korea etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

    That’s a very definitive sounding comment. I’m going to single out some stuff I don’t necessarily care for.

    Therefore, we should aim to efficiently allocate our resources to meet the most of our desires.

    Reader intended to infer that state capitalism accomplishes this despite ongoing evidence of looting of lower classes

    If in a population of 1000, there are 100 fiction writers

    Stop. You’re dismissing reality—people can organize without coercion; people grew and foraged and hunted more than enough for millennia—via a terrible hypothetical.

    From my PoV, dreaming about anarchism makes no sense.

    That’s a fine opinion to hold.

    There were no CEOs nor governments.

    There were no decision makers and nobody performed any disinterested administrative work or otherwise aided the public good?

    the people that lived in that world rapidly formed societies that had hierarchies

    Stop spitballing prehistory to back up your opinion of anarchism. Study some anthropology. For instance many archaeological digs show defined differences in construction at different times that show evidence of the overthrow of hierarchical rule, and great disparity of housing, in favor of more egalitarian organization and more egalitarian construction of homes and places of gathering.

    because that is the most efficient way.

    Money is most efficient when it circulates, because its purpose is to effectuate economic transactions, yes? Yet the current hierarchical world order is squeezing the lowest classes and ensuring they have nothing left to spend in their withering communities while amassing both real and virtual capital. The most efficient way to do what?

    The only way to keep a non-stable state is by force.

    I would put forward constant action and striving. I can choose to keep mixing the oil and the water. The ideal democracy is a process, not an endpoint.

    All that aside, your original comment that I replied to is still very funny.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (19 children)

    If it's necessary, someone will do it. If that can't be counted on, we're kinda fucked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (18 children)

    Will you? Because I know I won't

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (17 children)

    If all that stands between me and the beginning of a society with no oppression is strapping some gear on and doing some manual labor, then fuck it gimme a pickaxe I'm going down there.

    Am I suited for it? Absolutely the fuck not, but I'm willing, and I'm sure many others are as well, especially if they know that whatever happens, their safety and health comes before profit, and they'll always come back to a good place. I could certainly stand working until things begin to hurt if I knew every bit I dug up would do good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (16 children)

    Yeah that's cool. You and sewage guy will make a great duo. But the 5 dudes over there organized themselves, acquired a weapon and killed the other guy. They're waiting for you to come out of the mine with all those resources and you don't even know it.

    Is that freedom from oppression?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (15 children)

    Anarchism is the absence of hierarchy, not organization. The means of the people to use force against violent attempts at theft for personal gain are neither eliminated nor lessened.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (13 children)

    You seem to be consistently misunderstanding me. Did you seriously think what I meant was "me and this sewage guy are gonna singlehandedly fight off 5 armed men"? That's fucking absurd. What I actually meant was we would obviously have armed guards protecting valuables vulnerable to theft, like any other organized society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (12 children)

    Well. You could've said that if you wanted to say that.

    Now it's not 5 dudes. Your land is valuable and the neighbouring state wants to invade you. How do you stop it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (10 children)

    With what army? How do maintain a military without a hierarchy. Without central commands that everyone must follow

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (9 children)

    I never said that, either. I would say smaller, more specialized units like classrooms, search parties, and militaries benefit from adhering to an authority. It's just general society that cannot have a deemed authority.

    Let me illustrate the difference via an example: There is a math class. The class obeys the teacher. Why? Because the teacher is known, in some reliable way, to have the knowledge necessary to teach a class on the subject. They derive their authority from that. The students listen to them because they wanted to learn from them.

    So if a math teacher can have authority, derived from possessing the most knowledge about the subject at hand, how does, say, an executive or a legislator or a judge derive their authority? By being the most knowledgeable about... Everything? Just, fucking everything? It should stand to reason, because that's what they want to have authority over! But it doesn't, officials are NOT experts on literally everything. That's the difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (7 children)

    As it turns out rule by the people demands that the people are actually smart and kind to work well. You know, like rule by any other force.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (6 children)

    How are those demands going to be enforced?

    In most other political systems there is a central authority with a monopoly of violence that can enforce rules via violence.

    If your political system only works if everyone acts in the interests of society over their own, then it's not a political system. It's a failure. Because there are plenty of selfish people, and you can't change that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (5 children)

    If your political system relies on people with a monopoly on violence just deciding to be nice about it, what does that mean?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    Then that means it's shit.

    In a democracy, governments derive their power from the legitimacy that the support of their voters give them. If someone in government decides to "not be nice about it", then most likely the rest of the government would stop it. Remember, the government is made up of a LOT of people. If an entire political party goes nuts, then the opposition would get votes and reclaim the monopoly of violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (3 children)

    "the rest of the government would stop it" HAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA LMAO

    Sincerely, an American, a citizen of a country responsible for countless genocides and acts as of brutality and oppression, all under a republic, and is currently being taken over by fascists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    First of all, the US is a flawed democracy, not even a real one. And those genocides are done to people outside the US. None of my arguments are about what is morally correct or not.

    What I'm saying is that anarchy is not a stable system, it will eventually evolve into a stable one.

    In fact, the US right now is a perfect example of what I'm saying. You guys voted an openly fascist imbecile twice to the top power. And the other branches of government gave him even more power. And still, he has only openly killed like <10 citizens out of 330 million. And you guys still have elections. Sure, democracy has eroded a lot. But it's still technically a democracy.

    If someone like trump obtained that amount of power in an anarchic society, he would've just killed every democrat in the country.

    In a democracy (even if a shitty one), with a good chunk of the population backing him, he still does not have absolute power. More than 5 years in, he hasn't yet managed to end democracy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)